开云体育

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 开云体育
  1. R1b-S6881
  2. Topics

Age estimates and another potential new member?

 

Hi all

First, the potential member - last year I was contacted by Robert Pinnington about his tree. At that stage he had the 111 test and was a close match, but subsequently I have discovered (only recently) that he has the BigY results, and?R-FT356044 has been created for the two of us. Prior to that, my closest match was Max Pennington under?R-FT356010 which was created in 2020 when my BigY was added. I'm not sure if Robert is a member here, and I will email him to ask but this might be the quickest way to find out.

Robert has been tracing his Pennington line, but it's a bit sticky; however now I know he's a close match I am practically certain that my guess of being a Pennington through a non paternity event in 1818 is correct. With a few more clues on his tree and mine we might even be able to match the trees, which would be wonderful!

However - that brings me to the time estimates. It's possible that the most recent common ancestor was further back than we'll be able to trace; I would like to get a better feel for the likely time since the split., if such is possible. I guess the range may be big - but I don't know. Chris sent me a way to look at this in an email, but I am not quite sure how to apply it to myself and Robert from the results I see in the block tree.

Ideas anyone? (Especially Chris!)

Hope you are all well, it's been a while since there was anything on here.

Cheers
John
 

An update - the SNP tracker at??shows a big difference between R-FT356010 (about 750 years before present) and R-FT356044 (about 250 years before present).

Any ideas why?

John


?
 

Hi John,
? Scaled Innovation, while a lovely graphic, suffers when there are too few people in a haplogroup and, I feel, gives a bad estimate the closer it gets to today. Do you belong to the R1b-U106 IO group? Iain has spoken a bit about age estimates and the shortcomings of Scaled Innovations' age estimates fairly recently in that group. Looking at the Block Tree it shows that you and your new match share an average of 6 private variants. The real way to do age estimates (which Iain goes into much detail on the U106 group) is complicated and not something I'm good at since my matches are quite distant. For a fast and less accurate method you could figure if you both average 6 private variants and each SNP on average occurs every 83 years (from the Y700 test) then you are looking at around 500 years just to get back to the block of SNPs that you share with your new match. So I'm doubtful this match will get you to the 1800s. Probably more like the 1400s and there is a lot of error built into that calculation. There have also been people on the U106 group commenting that they have found distant cousins who they have tested which appear to show in their particular lines that it has been hundreds of years since a new SNP. So the 83 years can be way off for a line (it is just an average of us all). On the other hand, you could have more than one SNP occur in those 83 years so it isn't a very exact calculation. I know this isn't a really helpful answer but I do feel your match could be further back in time than a usual genealogical tree reaches. You can continue to research a possible Pennington/Pinnington NPE or it might just be that your match is before surnames were adopted for your line. I'm glad you've been able to find a closer match. You might want to see if you have any other 111 SNP matches that might be good candidates for testing and maybe this part of your tree will become more clear.

Chris


On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 6:20 AM John <john@...> wrote:
An update - the SNP tracker at??shows a big difference between R-FT356010 (about 750 years before present) and R-FT356044 (about 250 years before present).

Any ideas why?

John


?

 

Hi, John,
Yes, it is VERY likely that a "most recent common ancestor" lived before they started keeping parish registers in England (late-1500's).? Before that, only Noble and Royal families were recorded, to document inheritance and arms.? Our S6881 families were not "nobility," at least in the few centuries before that.? So there will be no "paper trail" from before then.
Jim

On Friday, May 27, 2022, 05:12:24 AM GMT-5, John <john@...> wrote:


Hi all

First, the potential member - last year I was contacted by Robert Pinnington about his tree. At that stage he had the 111 test and was a close match, but subsequently I have discovered (only recently) that he has the BigY results, and?R-FT356044 has been created for the two of us. Prior to that, my closest match was Max Pennington under?R-FT356010 which was created in 2020 when my BigY was added. I'm not sure if Robert is a member here, and I will email him to ask but this might be the quickest way to find out.

Robert has been tracing his Pennington line, but it's a bit sticky; however now I know he's a close match I am practically certain that my guess of being a Pennington through a non paternity event in 1818 is correct. With a few more clues on his tree and mine we might even be able to match the trees, which would be wonderful!

However - that brings me to the time estimates. It's possible that the most recent common ancestor was further back than we'll be able to trace; I would like to get a better feel for the likely time since the split., if such is possible. I guess the range may be big - but I don't know. Chris sent me a way to look at this in an email, but I am not quite sure how to apply it to myself and Robert from the results I see in the block tree.

Ideas anyone? (Especially Chris!)

Hope you are all well, it's been a while since there was anything on here.

Cheers
John

 

Thanks very much Chris and Jim - comments much appreciated. I was certainly totally mystified by the difference between the numbers for the two SNPs.

Yes Chris, I belong to the U106 group but there are a lot of posts on there and life is too short so I certainly don't catch everything. However I have dug out the post by Iain from last November with the reference to his look-up table at ?and put the numbers in there. For Robert and myself the range Iain's table gives for a most recent common ancestor is?1280AD to 1736AD at 95% confidence, with a mean of 1508AD.

So, since Parish records in England began in 1538 under Henry VIII after the reformation, it's not impossible that with a huge amount of luck there could be a recorded connection. But I wouldn't expect to be so lucky! I have been very surprised, though, at the number of parish records I have seen in Lancashire from the 1540s.

What I am pretty convinced by though is the Pennington connection. I was most surprised when 6 out of the 11 matches with 111 markers were either Penningtons or (in one case) had a Pennnington earliest paternal ancestor when my test was completed in July 2020. (It's now 7 out of 21.) So with my two closest Y matches in the block tree both Pennington / Pinnington, I suspect that the surname might just be right, especially since Lancashire (and the Wigan area in particular, where I come from) was such a hotbed of Penningtons. My studies of both the baptisms in the 1500s and the 1841 census make this particularly clear!

Chris, I will take your advice and look further at the other 111 matches - I can see now how that could well be very helpful.

Thanks again both, it's great to have help and advice from folks on here.

John

1 - 5 of 5